FTA-TV Bosto chucks it over black characters

[Bostonian]

So you hate everything historical Hollywood makes but keep watching it just to complain to other viewers about how much you hate the show they watch?

I watch it then notice it.

Imagine that.

 

[Father Jack]

It's the whole stands out like dogs balls thing.

Kinda like of you did a movie on the Rwandan Genocide and you cast Carrot Top as one of the Rwandan military leaders.

Look ******* stupid wouldn't it?

Would that be reflective of modern Rwandan society? Are there that many shows and movies being made that are filled with exclusively African characters that the Europeans are missing out? And why did you choose Carrot Top? Is that because you see things purely through a racial lens and haven't bothered to consider that there are various other attributes that an actor could bring to a role?

I saw a clip the other day of Pauline Hanson whingeing about some black people cluttering up s Netflix show that she was apparently watching and it reminded me of this thread.

 

[Bostonian]

Would that be reflective of modern Rwandan society? Are there that many shows and movies being made that are filled with exclusively African characters that the Europeans are missing out? And why did you choose Carrot Top? Is that because you see things purely through a racial lens and haven't bothered to consider that there are various other attributes that an actor could bring to a role?

I saw a clip the other day of Pauline Hanson whingeing about some black people cluttering up s Netflix show that she was apparently watching and it reminded me of this thread.

It would be inserting something in there that never existed.

Yes I see ancient Viking societies and their leaders through a white Germanic tribes lense.

Just as I'd see anything regarding the Rwandan Genocide through a black Rwandan lense. Zero need for any "diversity" when telling that story.

Not that hard to understand.

Who gives a * about modern society when your making something based on historical events and people.

 

[Father Jack]

It would be inserting something in there that never existed.

Yes I see ancient Viking societies and their leaders through a white Germanic tribes lense.

Just as I'd see anything regarding the Rwandan Genocide through a black Rwandan lense. Zero need for any "diversity" when telling that story.

Not that hard to understand.

Who gives a fu** about modern society when your making something based on historical events and people.

What about all the other things that are 'inserted in there' that never existed? Do they upset you as well? And if you admit that putting Carrot Top into a story about the Rwandan massacre is silly then all you've done is shown your own argument to be ridiculous.

The point about modern society is that it is modern society that is making and watching this TV show set in the olden days, therefore it is going to be a reflection of modern society because it absolutely has to be, it can't be anything else. You only have to look at older depictions of historical events to see that.

If people only choose to get upset about matters of race in a show that takes a million other liberties with the historical record, then what does that say about them?

 

[Bostonian]

What about all the other things that are 'inserted in there' that never existed? Do they upset you as well? And if you admit that putting Carrot Top into a story about the Rwandan massacre is silly then all you've done is shown your own argument to be ridiculous.

The point about modern society is that it is modern society that is making and watching this TV show set in the olden days, therefore it is going to be a reflection of modern society because it absolutely has to be, it can't be anything else. You only have to look at older depictions of historical events to see that.

If people only choose to get upset about matters of race in a show that takes a million other liberties with the historical record, then what does that say about them?

What a weird take.

Exactly why does something made about something set in a time and place in history need a "modern take"?

It absolutely does not have to be.

It's history FFS. If people want modern they can watch modern shows. People watch shows set in the past because they want that time and place.

You're a perfect example of the people who write garbage tv/movies and then wonder why it fails.

Do you think the majority of people are asking for these s**t takes on history?

What other liberties stick out like dogs balls like this casting in this show?

 

[Chief]

Exactly why does something made about something set in a time and place in history need a "modern take"?

Because it's made for modern audiences. It's not a history text.

 

[Father Jack]

What a weird take.

Exactly why does something made about something set in a time and place in history need a "modern take"?

It absolutely does not have to be.

It's history FFS. If people want modern they can watch modern shows. People watch shows set in the past because they want that time and place.

You're a perfect example of the people who write garbage tv/movies and then wonder why it fails.

Do you think the majority of people are asking for these s**t takes on history?

What other liberties stick out like dogs balls like this casting in this show?

You have completely missed the point. It's not that it 'needs' a modern take, it's that it is always going to have a modern take. The way we view history changes all the time, and the idea of some objective neutral take on history is ridiculous to anyone who has ever read anything about history and they way it has been written about over the decades and centuries.

The producers would have to go out of their way these days to have an exclusively white cast for anything (unlike even a couple of decades ago) and this way the only ones who complain are those that have specific issues with skin colour, and they can and should be ignored.

 

[Bostonian]

You have completely missed the point. It's not that it 'needs' a modern take, it's that it is always going to have a modern take. The way we view history changes all the time, and the idea of some objective neutral take on history is ridiculous to anyone who has ever read anything about history and they way it has been written about over the decades and centuries.

The producers would have to go out of their way these days to have an exclusively white cast for anything (unlike even a couple of decades ago) and this way the only ones who complain are those that have specific issues with skin colour, and they can and should be ignored.

The way we view history should only change based on things like archaeology and old texts rediscovered.

Not on some ******* writers feelings.

This isn't a show about a people and period a few decades ago.

The producers can quite easily make a show with real historical people to base it on without making any grand changes.

How are you going out of your way by only having people who looked like the Germanic people playing the characters of a Germanic tale?

Seems like the easiest thing to do.

 

[Gralin]

The way we view history should only change based on things like archaeology and old texts rediscovered.

Not on some ******* writers feelings.

This isn't a show about a people and period a few decades ago.

The producers can quite easily make a show with real historical people to base it on without making any grand changes.

How are you going out of your way by only having people who looked like the Germanic people playing the characters of a Germanic tale?

Seems like the easiest thing to do.

Are you for or against slavery?

 

[Bostonian]

Are you for or against slavery?

I'm all for black actors playing the parts of black slaves. Would be ridiculous having some pale Irishman playing the role of Kunta Kinte.

 

[Gralin]

I'm all for black actors playing the parts of black slaves.

Not my question. You said the only reason to change our view of history is if new information from back then is discovered like artifacts or texts.

By that theory you should be pro slavery as you wouldn't view the act through a modern lens, meaning you'd still be cool with people owning slaves now if your ancestors did, but you'd be against it if your ancestors were slaves

Extending from that you'd be annoyed about historical shows that cast slavery in a bad light if you were from group a but be cool with that if you were in group b and would be pissed about a show where a slave master was a hero

the idea that you look at history through the lens of historical views....

 

[Bostonian]

Not my question. You said the only reason to change our view of history is if new information from back then is discovered like artifacts or texts.

By that theory you should be pro slavery as you wouldn't view the act through a modern lens, meaning you'd still be cool with people owning slaves now if your ancestors did, but you'd be against it if your ancestors were slaves

Extending from that you'd be annoyed about historical shows that cast slavery in a bad light if you were from group a but be cool with that if you were in group b and would be pissed about a show where a slave master was a hero

the idea that you look at history through the lens of historical views....

What an utter s**t take.

If you're portraying slavery in film/tv you try and portray it as it was.

Have characters look and act like the people who were the slaves.

It's that simple.

Exactly why would you have any other kind of person other than a person of African appearance playing a slave in the Antebellum South?

 

[Chief]

Exactly why would you have any other kind of person other than a person of African appearance playing a slave in the Antebellum South?

If you did, you'd need to do it very cleverly.

 

[Bostonian]

If you did, you'd need to do it very cleverly.

But why do it when it serves zero purpose to the historical story.

There's plenty of stories to be told of those slaves so do it properly.

If you're telling the story of a black slave let a black person tell it.

Authenticity should always be a goal in anything historical.

It's why race swapping is complete wank.

It's not like if you went and studied history you couldn't find real people of all backgrounds to make movies about their stories.

It's just lazy s**t writing to put a black woman as the head of a Viking clan rather than go research African history and find a real and interesting character in an African nations history and make a show/movie about them.

 

[Gralin]

What an utter s**t take.

If you're portraying slavery in film/tv you try and portray it as it was.

Have characters look and act like the people who were the slaves.

It's that simple.

Exactly why would you have any other kind of person other than a person of African appearance playing a slave in the Antebellum South?

Well the problem is Bosto that you said we shouldn't view history through a modern lens

The way we view history should only change based on things like archaeology and old texts rediscovered.

Not on some ******* writers feelings.

 

[Chief]

But why do it when it serves zero purpose to the historical story.

I don't know. But if - IF - you did it, it would need to be done very clverely. For a reason that adds to the story.

Because it is still a story that is fresh in the culture of the world. We have pretty good records of events. It affects people living today.

Vikings don't have that same recency, detailed records, relevance to today's world. A dark-skinned Viking isn't even far-fetched given their travels.

Let it go.

 

[Bostonian]

Well the problem is Bosto that you said we shouldn't view history through a modern lens

And your take is still rubbish because you seem to be assuming that the only position was pro slavery of people back then and that and nobody was against it.

What if someone is viewing it through the lens of a Quaker?

 

[Father Jack]

What an utter s**t take.

If you're portraying slavery in film/tv you try and portray it as it was.

Have characters look and act like the people who were the slaves.

It's that simple.

Exactly why would you have any other kind of person other than a person of African appearance playing a slave in the Antebellum South?

What does 'African appearance' even mean? I mean, by that classification you would be quite happy with someone who looked like Freddy Mercury playing a slave. And they could too, as there were plenty of slaves who were the offspring of people of 'European appearance'.

 

[Gralin]

I don't know. But if - IF - you did it, it would need to be done very clverely. For a reason that adds to the story.

Because it is still a story that is fresh in the culture of the world. We have pretty good records of events. It affects people living today.

Vikings don't have that same recency, detailed records, relevance to today's world. A dark-skinned Viking isn't even far-fetched given their travels.

Let it go.

The thing is we don't have a fully detailed history of black people enslaving vikings so it's not even close to how it would be seen today to have white slaves on the cotton fields in America in a TV show with say black slave masters

 

[Gralin]

What does 'African appearance' even mean? I mean, by that classification you would be quite happy with someone who looked like Freddy Mercury playing a slave. And they could too, as there were plenty of slaves who were the offspring of people of 'European appearance'.

I mean Freddy wasn't white though I know a lot of people don't realise that so I understand where you're coming from

It's a bit of a troublesome comparison though

 

[Bostonian]

I don't know. But if - IF - you did it, it would need to be done very clverely. For a reason that adds to the story.

Because it is still a story that is fresh in the culture of the world. We have pretty good records of events. It affects people living today.

Vikings don't have that same recency, detailed records, relevance to today's world. A dark-skinned Viking isn't even far-fetched given their travels.

Let it go.

It wasn't done cleverly in this case.

It can't be if the whole arc is ridiculous like in this show.

We have records of this actual person in history.

Today's world has zero relevance to a tale of Viking tribes.


You mean tanned Vikings, not black Vikings.

 

[Bostonian]

The thing is we don't have a fully detailed history of black people enslaving vikings so it's not even close to how it would be seen today to have white slaves on the cotton fields in America in a TV show with say black slave masters

We have plenty of detailed history of Africans raiding and enslaving Europeans.

Probably some interesting stories to be told there.

 

[Father Jack]

I mean Freddy wasn't white though I know a lot of people don't realise that so I understand where you're coming from

It's a bit of a troublesome comparison though

how so?

 

[Gralin]

how so?

passing, gatekeeping, lots of issues
not with you knowing Freddy was born in Zanzibar
but with the he doesn't look African view

It's like people that the only real First Nation's people here are the ones that live in remote communities up North

That tell people you look to white to be black

Don't get me wrong, Hollywood casting is super racist, media is as well

they would absolutely say you don't look like the right kind of black person to Freddy and not let him be on Roots if he auditioned

Just more that the you look like xx has a lot of racist history attached to it

which also funnily enough leads into Boston's they don't look like vikings to me so its bad casting

 

[Gralin]

We have plenty of detailed history of Africans raiding and enslaving Europeans.

Probably some interesting stories to be told there.

that's cool man but we didn't end up with Western Europe under the thumb of Imperial African rule did we

Didn't have generations of colonisation and destruction, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, theft of land and resources ongoing to this day